In a US criminal case, if a juror is thinking, ‘I’m just not sure he’s guilty,’ does that mean the state hasn’t met its burden of proof?
Here’s part of the NY Pattern Jury Instruction on reasonable doubt:
The law uses ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ to indicate how convincing the evidence must be for a guilty verdict. It’s not absolute certainty, but the proof must be stronger than ‘probably guilty.’ A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt for which a reason exists, based on the evidence. It must be a real doubt that a reasonable person would have, considering the evidence or lack of it. The People must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. If you’re not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.
While jurors are supposed to have a reason for their doubt, as a practical matter, a juror can vote based on their feelings, and judges have limited ability to intervene in deliberations.
What matters is if a juror has a reasonable doubt, not whether they’re just unsure.
Ren said:
What matters is if a juror has a reasonable doubt, not whether they’re just unsure.
If a juror isn’t sure, then the state hasn’t met its burden.
Ren said:
What matters is if a juror has a reasonable doubt, not whether they’re just unsure.
If a juror isn’t sure, then the state hasn’t met its burden.
The standard is ‘reasonable doubt,’ not absolute certainty.
Yes.
Yep, that’s what it means.
If a juror can explain their doubt with a reason based on the evidence, then it counts as reasonable doubt. But if a juror just says, ‘I’m not sure,’ without any reasoning, that’s not necessarily reasonable doubt. In practice, though, jurors don’t have to justify their decisions.